Key issue or relevant
point:Whether or not Plaintiffs’
motion for default judgment should be granted, and if granted, what should be:
(a) the amount of statutory damages for willful infringement, and (b) the
amount of attorney’s fees and expenses.

Ruling of Finding:Under the facts of the case the Motion for
Default Judgment was granted.The court
believed a “Substantial” award of statutory damages was more appropriate than a
maximum award, largely based on the preexisting relationship between the
parties. Here, although the Defendants’ conduct
prior to and during litigation was tantamount to “egregious”, the previous
long-term and mutually beneficial contractual and licensing relationship between the parties hindered
the Courts willingness to award $150,000 in max damages.The Court also awarded reasonable attorney’s
fees and expenses in favor of the Plaintiff.

Court:United States District Court, N.D.
California, San Jose Division (2014).

Document status: Order
Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant’s Pre-Trial Motion to Dismiss

Issue or relevant
point: 1. Can the court make a finding of non-infringement while
considering a motion to dismiss?2.Does Plaintiff’s complaint sufficiently plead
‘substantial similarity’ between protectable elements and the alleged copying?

Ruling or Findings:
Yes – courts have authority to find non-infringement when considering a
pre-trial motion to dismiss. In this case, the copyright claim was dismissed because
the Plaintiff had not plead sufficient facts to show infringement; however, the
court granted the Plaintiff the option to file an amended complaint.

Issue or relevant point: When are maximum statutory damages appropriate?

Ruling:Maximum statutory damages are appropriate when the evidence shows willful infringement, profit by the infringer, loss of revenue to the rights holder, and where the award will serve to protect the copyright system from flagrant violation of the law.

Issue or relevant
point(s): Whether or not BMI had a proper chain of title and/or the
proprietors of the copyrighted works at issue?Whether or not BMI could/should be awarded fees and costs?

Ruling:The Court granted summary judgment in favor
of BMI as to liability for copyright infringement as to five of the six musical
compositions. The Court also awarded BMI statutory damages, attorney’s fees and
court costs.

Court: United
States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, Boston, MA

Document status:
Court Order and Opinion (on appeal by Plaintiff)

Issue or relevant
point: The Court looked at whether the district court’s grant of summary
judgment for lack of ‘substantial similarity’ was supported by: i) proper dissection
of protectable and non-protectable elements of a photograph, and ii) proper
application of a ‘substantial similarity’ assessment as to the protectable
elements.

Ruling or Findings:
It is completely proper to dissect a copyrighted work into its protected and
non-protected elements.If there is not
substantial similarity between protected elements of the original work and the
alleged infringing work, there is no copyright infringement.